IBHE report gets grade of "incomplete"

February 5, 2002

To: Chairman Phil Rock and Members of the Illinois Board of Higher Education
From: Mitch Vogel, President of the University Professionals of Illinois
Re: IBHE Staff Report, All Faculty Matter!

As one of the major initiators of HJR 19, I must express disappointment in your staff's initial response, All Faculty Matter!. There is neither hard data nor any specific recommendations on issues. While, I am happy your staff intends to continue its study and seek public input, I can only hope that they will complete their task and provide the legislatively requested data and the specific recommendations needed to solve the important problem facing our state's great treasure - its Public Higher Education system. At present, I must give your staff's report a grade of Incomplete.

The University Professionals of Illinois has requested data on the overuse and abuse of part time and non-tenure track faculty for over a decade. In fact in 1993, I addressed this body and asked your staff to prepare a comprehensive study on this subject. Although the Board Chair and your members expressed interest in conducting a study in 1993, none was forthcoming. At that time we also expressed our concern that if unchecked this trend would become a disturbing reality and our universities' academic excellence and tradition of shared governance would be jeopardized. Each year thereafter two things occurred, UPI continued making unanswered requests and the numbers of non-tenure track faculty increased.

Then two years ago, we tried a different tack. Our lobbyists asked a number of legislators for assistance. We asked them to pass a joint resolution directing public universities and community colleges to provide a "detailed report" that would "review the growing dependence on part-time and non-tenure track faculty."

HJR 19 asked the IBHE to compile and provide the General Assembly - by December 15, 2001 - "reports regarding the use and compensation of part-time and non-tenure track faculty. " Data was to be gathered by each university and college and then submitted to the IBHE. At that time, I was optimistic that we would at last begin to get hard data on the perceived problem. HJR 19 further resolved that the IBHE was to "consider policies designed to discourage over reliance on part-time and non-tenure track faculty for undergraduate instruction while protecting those instructors performing effectivelyÉ"

In addition, the IBHE was directed to make recommendations to the General Assembly concerning "the establishment of minimum salary and fringe benefit provisions indexed to tenure-track faculty compensationÉto ensure fair employment and consistent emphasis on quality instructionÉ"

That was the charge. Your staff has not yet delivered. I am hopeful that we will soon receive those responses, and that the debate concerning their initial response will assist your staff in answering the actual call of HJR 19.

To this end, I offer the following basic four points.

1.

Why a grade of Incomplete? Because there are many questions that have not been addressed - Where is the campus-by-campus data? Are there differences in use of non-tenure track faculty amongst our universities and colleges? Do Doctoral granting institutions rely more upon part-timers than the other campuses? Is there is a difference in the use of contingent faculty between urban and non-urban campuses? What impact do graduate employees have upon this data? Are these numbers growing or not growing? Did all universities and colleges comply with the staff's requests for data?

2.

HJR 19 asked for recommendations as to the methods of - and estimates of the costs to - index part-time, non-tenure track salaries to those of the tenure track. At present there is no response to this request. What are the financial costs? I was asked for this data by your panel on contingent faculty and had to confess that I didn't have exact data. It was my hope that it would be provided as part of the report.

3.

However, the most crucial error of the report is that there is no attempt to define the use of contingent faculty in the context of our state's "consistent emphasis on quality instruction." By dramatically changing the ratio of full-time tenure track faculty to part-time non-tenure track faculty, we have effectively changed the social machinery of our universities. Just a few decades ago, our universities functioned with real shared governance. Faculty knew that they were required to perform at an exceptional level; they knew that senior tenured professors would evaluate them at regular intervals; and that the development of courses and academic policy would involve all those with a long-term stake in their university's future. Faculty knew that tenure and the pursuit of tenure was a driving force for excellence and academic integrity. I do want to point out - that when one considers the impediments under which they work, it is remarkable that the vast majority of contingent faculty teach with great distinction and make enormous contributions to the institutions in which they serve. The weakening of quality is the direct result of the conditions that they work under and their "exploited status" and has nothing to do with their intellectual capacities and commitment. Your report must explore the impact on academic excellence by the overuse/abuse of contingent faculty.

Instructors who are underpaid and continually insecure as to their future employment can find it difficult to bring into the classroom the confidence and creativity necessary for the best teaching. Instructors called up at the last minute, and forced to use someone else's choice of texts, have difficulty providing their best work. Contingent faculty generally lack decent offices and paid office hours. In addition, uninformed of departmental and university policies and procedures, it is hard for contingent faculty to serve as liaison between the university and the student.

4.

Finally, where are the recommendations to curb this increase in contingent labor? You state that a disconnect exists between the perception of this group as an exploited class and the comments of the contingent labor force that you surveyed. You imply that perhaps a problem doesn't exist. I can only equate this with the words of eminent scholars studying exploited classes and castes throughout history. They also conducted research, which described large numbers of contented exploited workers. While, it is true that there have been other studies which state that many of our contingent labor force enjoy their teaching, this is because they are passionate about teaching. It does not reflect their feelings about their economic situation. They relish their teaching assignments and therefore accept small financial remuneration for their work. There are part-time faculty who fit that description. However, that doesn't describe everyone and certainly doesn't describe the majority. National and UPI anecdotal data suggests a majority desire full-time tenure track appointments. Interestingly, your own data states 44%. This is the group being exploited. We should not confuse their happiness in the classroom with their unhappiness when bill-paying time comes along.

Another troubling recommendation is that the problems should be addressed at the campus level. This recommendation is faulty. It was the campus leadership that created the problem and they have shown no desire to fix it. You must intervene. If you don't, others will.

Please finish the study. HJR 19 requested data and recommendations you did not provide. All the universities should be in compliance and provide the necessary data. A survey of feelings is no substitute for hard data. And, most importantly, do not ignore the problem. Our universities are suffering, many of our teachers are suffering and most importantly the quality of public education in Illinois is suffering.